HKSAR v. CHOW CHI YUNG

DCCC 1025/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1025 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 13 charges of "Burglary". He burgled offices of the same company situated at 3 different locations. At the time of the offences, he was a former employee of that company.

Summary of Facts

2. Manulife (International) Limited ("Manulife") has several branches in Hong Kong.  They include Manulife Provident Funds Place in Yau Ma Tei ("Branch 1"); Manulife Financial Centre in Kwun Tong ("Branch 2"); and Manulife Plaza in Causeway Bay ("Branch 3").

3. The defendant was employed by Manulife as an insurance agent.  He worked at Branch 3 from February 2014 to January 2015.  He was not allowed to enter any branches of Manulife after termination of his employment on 21 January 2015.

4. The modus operandi in all 13 charges is identical.  From his termination by Manulife to the end of August 2015, the defendant, as a trespasser, went into offices situated at different floors of Branches 1 to 3.  In those offices, he stole properties such as gold ornaments, cash and cash coupons from the desks or desk drawers.  The stolen items were personal properties belonging to staff members of Manulife; their total value was about $25,000.

5. CCTV footage of Branches 1 to 3 captured images of the defendant on various days from April to August 2015.

6. The defendant was arrested at his home on 21 August 2015.  In his video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that he had entered different offices situated at Branches 1 to 3 to steal because he was in debt. He also committed the offences out of greed.  He learned the passcodes of those offices by peeping at the numbers entered by staff members.  Still photographs of the relevant CCTV footage were shown to the defendant.  He admitted that he was the person captured by the footage.

Mitigation & Sentence

7. The defendant is 23, single and has a clear record. Defence lawyer Ms. KWOK informed me that the defendant is a F.7 graduate. After leaving Manulife, he worked as a casual worker at construction sites until August 2015.

8. In mitigation, Ms. KWOK submitted that when he committed the offences, the defendant was in debt for about $150,000. Also, at the time of the offences, he still owed Manulife $5,000 being salary advanced to him. Ms. KWOK further submitted that the defendant borrowed money from money lenders in order to help a friend to fund that friend's university education. Unfortunately, the friend did not repay the defendant. As a result, the defendant thought committing burglaries could help repaying his debt. Ms. KWOK informed me that the defendant is willing to raise money to compensate the victims in this case. I gave the defendant 2 weeks to make the necessary arrangements.

9. This afternoon, Ms. KWOK informed me that the defendant was unable to raise sufficient funds to compensate all the victims. All he could do is to use his bail money ($10,000) to make partial compensation. Ms. KWOK has submitted a payment schedule stating the amount each victim would receive on a pro rata basis. Ms. KWOK also informed me about further debts which the defendant owes.

10. The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. The defendant has a clear record, but committing a series of burglaries within 6 months can be regarded as an aggravating factor[1]. After due consideration, I have decided not to raise the starting point for each charge.

11. For Charges 1 to 13, I adopt the usual starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment each. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 20 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. The sentence for each charge is 20 months' imprisonment.

12. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 4 years to be appropriate for all 13 charges. With the guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months. As the defendant has compensated $10,000 out of $25,870, I will grant a further discount of 2 months. Hence, I order the sentences to run in the following manner :-

(i) Charges 1 to 5 concurrent;

(ii) Charges 6 to 12 concurrent; but 5 months consecutive to Charges 1 to 5; and

(ii) 5 months in Charge 13 consecutive to Charges 1 to 12.

Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 30 months.